November 16, 2004

NOT SORRY

Contrast those sorry idiots with the image found here of Lance Cpl. James Blake Miller:

The photograph, taken by a Los Angeles Times photographer and transmitted by The Associated Press, has been printed in more than 100 newspapers and shown on network television.

Miller, 20, is shown with smudged camouflage paint and a bloody scratch on his nose, a cigarette drooping from the side of his mouth. He was exhausted and grimy after more than 12 hours of nonstop fighting.

Miller, a graduate of Shelby Valley High School, is serving with Charlie Company of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment in the Iraqi city of Falluja, scene of fierce battles over the past week.

Nice line from Millerís mother, of Robinson Creek in eastern Kentucky: "Until my son went into the Marines, I never really realized what that flag stood for -- but now I do". You know, if those sorryistas really wanted to help, they could contribute to this:

The brainchild of Port Arthur detective and police sniper Brian Sain, Adopt a Sniper has raised thousands of dollars in cash and gear to supplement the kit of sharp shooters in up to 75 US combat platoons.

Iím in for $50. And speaking of payback ...

(Via contributors J. F. Beck and Alan R. M. Jones, and reader Aaron H.)

UPDATE. Readers of the Akron Beacon Journal are offended: "Why the front-page photo of a soldier with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth? Ö One would hope that the editors had more sense than to show willfully negligent behavior on the part of a service person on the front page."

Posted by Tim Blair at November 16, 2004 10:52 AM
Comments

People actually complained when the NY Post ran the picture of LCPL Miller with a cigarette, because "children would see him smoking"! ("What about the children?! Won't somebody think about the children?!")

Miller's response: "Tell Marlboro I'm down to four packs and ask them to send some more."

Not a lot of back-up in that boy...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at November 16, 2004 at 11:11 AM

The brainchild of Port Arthur detective and police sniper Brian Sain

That gave me a bit of a shock.

Posted by: Andjam at November 16, 2004 at 11:21 AM

Nah, why would those sorry lefties pitch in for that project...they're pretty good at sniping from the sidelines themselves, after all.

Hmm, on second thought, maybe that would make for a nice addition to psyops...lefties with megaphones who annoy the enemy to death. We'd just have to make sure they actually recognize the right enemy, which admittedly could be a problem.

Posted by: PW at November 16, 2004 at 11:41 AM

Yea. If he ever makes it to Australia I suggest that he doesn't introduce himself as "Port Arthur sniper, Brian Sain".

Posted by: Pig Head Sucker at November 16, 2004 at 11:46 AM

What's the connotation of "Port Arthur" in Australia?

/ignorant Amerikanka

Posted by: Sonetka at November 16, 2004 at 12:10 PM

One of Kentucky's biggest crops is tobacco. So not only is James defending the folks back home, he is also supporting the local economy. What a guy!

Posted by: perfectsense at November 16, 2004 at 12:16 PM

Sonetka

See here.

Or here.

Posted by: Pig Head Sucker at November 16, 2004 at 12:29 PM

Anyone want to bet that the photographer thought that he was making an "anti-war" statement with the "face of war" picture figuring that it would horrify most people. Just a question. Didn't Sean Penn appear in "Platoon" with a cigarette in his mouth? Just asking.

Posted by: YoJimbo at November 16, 2004 at 12:34 PM

Sonetka,
Port Arthur, the site of a 1800's penal colony in Tasmania is now a tourist attraction. It also the site of the largest single gunman massacre in Australia's history. Thirty-five men, women and children were killed at this site on 28 April 1996.

Posted by: Lofty at November 16, 2004 at 12:38 PM

Sonetka: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_Massacre

Posted by: Jorge at November 16, 2004 at 12:43 PM

One doesn't get executed for killing 35 people in Australia?

You must have adopted some of those 'nuanced' laws from Europe, or from some of our more 'nuanced' states here in the US, feh.

Posted by: goldsmith at November 16, 2004 at 12:52 PM

Is there any way we can run donations to adopt-a-sniper through an Australian public benevolent fund so that deductions are tax deductible?

Posted by: 2dogs at November 16, 2004 at 01:14 PM

I voted for Kerry but those fucking apology photographs make me naseous. Now I feel shame!

Posted by: Sean at November 16, 2004 at 01:26 PM

You must have adopted some of those 'nuanced' laws from Europe, or from some of our more 'nuanced' states here in the US, feh.

At least no former Australian foreign minister is calling for him to be released so he can be governor of Tasmania.

/Thankful that as far as I know Bryant will be in jail till the day he dies

Posted by: Andjam at November 16, 2004 at 01:29 PM

Jesus Christ. Thanks for the links, guys - and yes, I can see why "Port Arthur sniper" wouldn't go down very well.

But I like the "Adopt A Sniper" idea :).

Posted by: Sonetka at November 16, 2004 at 01:45 PM

Soldiers shouldn't smoke. Smoking is dangerous.

/irony

Posted by: Evil Pundit at November 16, 2004 at 01:48 PM

Also, that soldier's uniform is dirty. He is setting a bad example for clothes wearing people everywhere.

Posted by: I love our GIs! at November 16, 2004 at 02:29 PM

I like his photo better than this guy's.

Posted by: Swade at November 16, 2004 at 02:33 PM

Better sorry than safe, huh, Swade?

Posted by: I love our GIs! at November 16, 2004 at 02:46 PM

Sometimes, GI lover, sometimes.

Posted by: Swade at November 16, 2004 at 02:54 PM

Swade, if true, the Marine committed a war crime, and will be tried in a court martial. I believe that justice will prevail. He's not the first, and not the last, I am sad to say.

In his defense, this is a crime as well, and a war crime to boot, even if we are fighting terrorists.

I don't see you complaining about that murder. Any comments? No? Not surprising -- it's clear where your sympathies lie.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 16, 2004 at 02:59 PM

PS: Just so you are educated, Swade, "GI" refers to soldiers in the US Army. Marines are Marines.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 16, 2004 at 03:02 PM

JeffS, just so you're educated, the GI reference above was solely aimed at adressing the commenter, "I love our GIs". My ideology is not hidden, JeffS. Please don't try to pretend that you've unearthed anything huge here.

For your records, I think all the murders committed by insurgents in Fallujah are horrific. I hope the soldiers clean the place up, get out and get safe. And i hope the Marine does get court-martialled. And I hope Lance Cpl Miller comes home, gets married and has a bunch of kiddies (if that's his inclination).

I just don't agree with the whole freaking conflict in the first place (i.e. from March 2003 until now, not the last week - pre-emptive strike against JeffS's particularism).

Posted by: Swade at November 16, 2004 at 03:15 PM

Thanks for the "payback" link Tim.

...went into Getty Images Editorial there and did a search for "Fallujah". There's hundreds of battle pics of all sorts. And there's some graphic shots of terrorists who got paid back pretty hard - adds a bit more context to the message on the bridge.

A couple of nasty images of some of the terrorists most recent victims too. To Hell they shall go indeed.

Posted by: Kip Watson at November 16, 2004 at 03:29 PM

And how that murder that you've linked to contributes to the marine's "defence", as you put it, will remain one of the legal system's mysteries I guess.

The fact that he'd been shot in the face the previous day might constitute mitigating circumstances, and I'm guessing that you did read that in the article, right Jeff? Right?

What?! A kneejerk-reaction-post about the gruesome murdered woman to shut up the obviously raging lefty? No!

It's OK, Andrea, I'm going now.

Posted by: Swade at November 16, 2004 at 03:33 PM

All, I neglected to address the last comment to JeffS. Considered it now addressed.

I really am going now, Andrea.

Posted by: Swade at November 16, 2004 at 03:35 PM

Thank you for the honest response, Swade. And for the support and hope of a safe return for the Marines. God knows they need it. And the justice as well. My apologies if I misread your intent and sympathies.

But you touched a button. Your pointing out a possible war crime when the topic was cigarette smoking was provacative and inflammatory. It also sounded (to me) smug at the "gotcha!" over a Marine caught in a crime.

Perhaps next time, you might tone it down, on the order of, "Yes, there are good guys out there, people focus on silly problems, but our soldiers and Marines are human, and will make mistakes."

And next time, I'll try to be less assuming.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 16, 2004 at 03:35 PM

Well, that was a wasted apology.

Swade, ever thought that the Marine had already seen atrocities committed by terrorists? Ever wonder what's like to find the bodies of civilians abused and butchered?

Ever wonder, "God, what if that dude has a grenade we missed?", because you saw buddy shot by someone who had surrendered, but had a hidden pistol? I haven't -- but I've known those who have. You get pretty twitchy.

State of mind is a perfectly legal defense, even in the military. It might lead to a lesser charge. Or not. I don't know, I'm not there.

I do know that you weren't exactly honest in your first response. I either pissed you off, or I upset you. Which one is your problem.

Just think about what you post next time.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 16, 2004 at 03:42 PM

Concerning the Marine who shot the wounded terrorist- According to news releases, previous to this event, wounded and dead bodies had been booby trapped.

Pretending to surrender is also a war crime.

The young Marine, no doubt felt what he was doing was right considering what he has been through and wittnesed. He will probably be charged and punished because; #1 Politcal Correctness and #2 we are a civilized society.

Personally, I wish I could bake up a batch of cookies and send that Marine a nice "care package". He deserves it after what he's been doing these past days. Screw the media and the bleating masses.

Posted by: Donna at November 16, 2004 at 03:53 PM

That's a doctored photo - and a homoerotic one at that.

Posted by: Gaylord at November 16, 2004 at 04:00 PM

Wasn't he dying?
Yup, smoking is a health hazard!

Posted by: kae at November 16, 2004 at 05:01 PM

Donna

"Concerning the Marine who shot the wounded terrorist- According to news...."

Might be a good idea if you presaged any future similar post that originates with a report from the MSM with the qualifier, "alleged", as in, "Concerning the Marine who *allegedly* shot......"
The MSM isn't exactly noted for its veracity these days y'know. That aside, any grunt who does2545n't make sure in a fire fight doesn't have a real long life expectancy - back-broke snakes still bite.

Posted by: Mike McNott at November 16, 2004 at 05:11 PM

So that Marine rid the world of a piece of shit. Who cares. Too comdenm that Marine is like condenming the guy who threw the switch on Timothy McVeigh. Both of them, the Marine and the executioner of McVeigh, made the world just a little bit better place.

Posted by: David Crawford at November 16, 2004 at 05:29 PM

Oh my aching ass! If nothing else, the furor over a combat soldier lighting up during a lull in CQC illustrates just how out of touch the liberal elite are with reality. For Chrissake! This young warrior has every expectancy of being thrown back in the deep end during the next few minutes, hours or days, with every possibility of being killed or mutilated and the politically correct, blue state, minority are concerned that he is injuring his health or creating a bad example???? Jesus wept! How effete these wankers have become! Words fail me! They are not worth the ultimate sacrifice that these young men are making!

Posted by: Mike McNott at November 16, 2004 at 05:31 PM

David, that is what an investigation, and possibly a court martial will determine. That the Marine *allegedly* committed a war crime by shooting a prisoner (terrorist piece of shit or not) is what the problem is.

That we care about this is what separates us from those terrorists bastards.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 16, 2004 at 05:33 PM

ack! someone on this blog used the word 'insurgents' without a trace of irony. to that person i can only say YES! i'd like to punch you in the head repeatedly until you understand...

Posted by: rosceo at November 16, 2004 at 06:01 PM

Port arthur was a tragedy,but as the gun nut lobby claims-guns don't kill people,people kill people.
Luckily for australians the government actually did something and banned automatic and semi automatic weapons.
Millions of weapons were destroyed-hurrah!

Posted by: marklatham at November 16, 2004 at 08:39 PM

JeffS,

We agree and we disagree. That we care is indeed an important distinction. Regarding you questioning my honesty, all my content was quite sincere. I do oppose this war, but seeing it's on, I hope all the soldiers over there get the job done and get home safely. I have mates in the service and my own nephew is in the service, though not likely ever to see action there. I know the concerns and so I do hope all soldiers get home safe and soon.

My reaction concerned your standard RWDB response to my initial posting.

I'll read it again, but I didn't think the topic was smoking. I mean it was in there, but I thought the soldier and his noteriety was the topic. Yeah, I'm right. The update concerns the smoking crap (big deal).

And Rosceo, I live in Hobart. It's a small place. Come on down.

Posted by: Swade at November 16, 2004 at 10:13 PM

I thought you were going, Swade. By the way, it's "notoriety," and I am not sure I understand your use of the word. Perhaps you mean the marine's bravery, as opposed to the sad cowardice of the sorry people?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 16, 2004 at 10:24 PM

Yes, marklatham, millions of weapons were confiscated and destroyed in Oz, and the crime rates went through the roof.Nice move.

Posted by: alfadog at November 16, 2004 at 10:32 PM

MarkLatham

Knew there was a reason I didn't vote for you -- idiocy scares me.

Semi-automatic weapons [sic] are NOT banned -- you can still get them on your licence. All you need is a reason, such as disability etc. And semi-auto handguns are definitely not prohibited -- or banned.

"Millions" were destroyed? I think not -- only some 600 000+ were handed in -- which some estimates put as low as 25% of the "banned" total. I lost 2 -- and bought myself 2 newer, better ones with the cheque. Thanks, Johnny.

As a "gun nut", I agree, guns don't kill people. I loaded one and put it on the kitchen table -- watched it for hours and you know what -- it never moved even once!

Maybe you could explain why gun crime has actually increased since your much-vaunted "stealback"? And while suicide by firearm has decreased, overall suicide figures have risen? Or are you somehow "deader" if you use a firearm?

Posted by: BruceT at November 16, 2004 at 10:39 PM

You are right-on EP. I guarantee you that dying of cancer was the last thing on this young man's mind. The objections to the photo prove that the brain-dead twit brigade is alive and well in Akron, Ohio. They might want to test the levels of lead in their drinking water, evidently they have more to worry about that cigarettes.

Posted by: Bob I at November 16, 2004 at 11:10 PM

Bob I: Now, there's all sorts of painting people with broad brushes going on these days, but as a resident of Greater Akron [sic], please peel off for a second and concentrate on the couple dimwits who wrote in about the cigarette, not all the consumers of the local water supply.

I read Mike Needs' (public editor) Sunday column in the print edition, I assume that's what the link is pointing to; the column was devoted to reader reaction to the photo. Two or three people wrote in about how now, all the kids in Akron think it's ok to smoke, yes. But many, many more wrote in to say the picture haunted them all week, that it captured warfare in a way photojournalism hasn't for decades, that we all ought to chip in and buy him some more smokes, etc.

My Township went Bush by about 100 votes (out of about 4500 cast), my county went Kerry by about 55-45, and Akron is the kind of place where people are a little, shall we say, "disconnected" from the war -- enough to glom onto the cigarette in that picture and scold the editors of the Beacon Journal for running it. But a couple kooks don't speak for everybody. They don't even speak for the majority of people writing in about the picture, to judge from Needs' column.

Posted by: Matt at November 16, 2004 at 11:54 PM

Miller, a graduate of Shelby Valley High School...


A Kentuckian, by God! Go get 'em, boy!

hbchrist
American by birth, Kentuckian by the grace of God.

Posted by: hbchrist at November 17, 2004 at 12:37 AM

Have you seen what has happened to the Werenotsorry.com site? It looks like it has had to close after receiving vicious e-mails and threats of physical violence and even phone calls of the same nature. The left go on about free speech but why do they always try to shut it down?
I have e-mailed sorryeverybody.com to ask if they have anything to say about this (sorry would be a start but I suspect it will be the hardest word for those twats). I suggest you all do the same.

Posted by: Craig at November 17, 2004 at 01:06 AM

Semi-automatic weapons [sic] are NOT banned -- you can still get them on your licence. All you need is a reason, such as disability etc.

So, they are banned unless you get official permission, which is essentially all that any banning or prohibition ever is.

Color this resident of Texas unimpressed with the state of gun rights in Oz.

Posted by: R C Dean at November 17, 2004 at 01:09 AM

Matt, point taken. My apologies to you, the Greater Akron Municipal Water and MOST of Akron. Perhaps the nitwits in question are drinking Evian?

Posted by: Bob I at November 17, 2004 at 01:11 AM

"Evian" is "naive" spelled backwards, Bob I. Surely there's a relationship if those whiners are drinking it. :-P

Posted by: JorgXMcKie (not) at November 17, 2004 at 01:14 AM

Swade: " And i hope the Marine does get court-martialled."

Screw you and your jump to conclude that a story in the media is a guilty verdict. You don't have a clue to the circumstances in this case but are quick to judge because you are against the war in general.

Posted by: Tej at November 17, 2004 at 02:06 AM

I studied militsry history in grad school--it was called strategic studies for PC reasons.

There are hundreds of on the record stories of summary executions enacted by US military personnel in WWII. Most were of the variety that were designed to encourage a recalcitrant Waffen SS sort to start discussing where the 88s were that had just flattened the American armor.

No one gave a crap; they live all around us. I've met them--my local paper, The Greenwich (Ct) Time did a profile of a guy recently who happily discussed executing two men in front of their fellow wehrmacht mates to get them talking. they did.

Which just brings me round to the irony of how times change. Like Real JeffS said, we are different than the enemy. But still, I dont know why i simply could care less about that marines actions.

Posted by: rod at November 17, 2004 at 02:19 AM

Didn't John Kerry receive the Silver Star for a similar "war crime"?

Posted by: nobody imporant at November 17, 2004 at 02:29 AM

Tej has it right.

Although he claims otherwise, Swade seems to have forgotton that we're fighting animals who think semtex and slaughter rooms are worth killing and dying for; that mosques make fine munitions dumps, sniper perches and make-shift forts; that a city's architecture should be renovated with bombs, people booby-trapped, and the citizenry controlled by criminal, fascist sociopaths who fight dirty for dirty ends; that a country should be terrorized by medievalism, murder and mayhem during its bid to establish democracy, peace and prosperity.

That a GI or Marine who is unsure of a devious enemy who is not surrendering, just might give the terrorist, who believes that semtex and slaughter rooms are worth killing and dying for, his due.

Let's give this Marine his due process before convicting him in the court of press opinion.

Posted by: tough call at November 17, 2004 at 02:42 AM

the ABC did a hatchet job on "Lateline" tonight, leading with their story of a "WAR CRIME", committed by a marine shooting dead a "WOUNDED" insurgent who was "SHELTERING IN A MOSQUE". Not even a pretence of objectivity.
FYI Roscoe, use of the word "insurgent" may be okay? In the film clips from Fallujah Marines on the scene were referring to their enemy as "insurgents" (without a trace of irony).

Posted by: Steve at the pub at November 17, 2004 at 02:53 AM

Adopt a sniper, what a fantastic idea! Perhaps we could start "Adopt a frontline Digger" or similar?

Posted by: Steve at the pub at November 17, 2004 at 02:57 AM

Tough call:
>Let's give this Marine his due process...

Due process? I know you are trying to be decent, as is The Real Jeffs, but f**k that. This Marine has NOTHING to answer for.

How many GIs will now get killed cleaning out these Iraqi shitholes because they hestitated due to due process and the possible publicity of this case? Just one is far too many.

For the rule makers it's always somebody else's life at risk not their own. Screw them.

Posted by: JamesUK at November 17, 2004 at 03:25 AM

The Port Arthur operation was a successful and inspiring act of a frustrated freedom fighter. I find it absolutely nauseating that Martin Bryant's heroism is scorned as "murder". We all know who the real murderers are; please don't tar with the same brush those who are merely defending themselves against the hegemonists, neocons, paleocons, Repugnothuglicons, Americans, Zionists, Seventh Day Adventists, gay-bashers, values-voters, red-state cartoon people, security moms, hobbits, trolls, dandruff -- a Nobel Peace Prize winner has authoritatively suggested that the CIA is in fact responsible for dandruff, an accusation which the US administration (monarchy) has ominously refused even to address -- and other similar threats.

Posted by: Aarrgghh at November 17, 2004 at 03:44 AM

From Newsmax:

Patrolling the Bay Hap River, Kerry and his crew discovered they were about to be ambushed by a Vietcong soldier who had just popped up at the shoreline with a loaded rocket launcher in his hands. With the VC about to fire, Kerry crewmate Thomas Bellodeau shot and wounded the attacker, saving the entire boat.

Only then did Kerry leap to the shore to chase the wounded enemy down - finishing him off behind a hootch.

When critics suggested that Kerry's actions that day were something less than heroic, they were hooted down by the press.

Certainly the as yet unnamed Marine in Fallujah deserves, if not the Silver Star, the same slack the press cut Kerry.

'Nuff said.

TV (Harry)

Posted by: Inspector Callahan at November 17, 2004 at 05:13 AM

Didn't John Kerry get a medal for shooting a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong teenager in the back?

Posted by: Wethal at November 17, 2004 at 05:15 AM

He did, Welthal. Perhaps Kerry can give his Silver Star to the Marine.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 17, 2004 at 05:20 AM

The true lesson to be learned here: Shoot the f***ing reporter and cameraman first!!!!

Posted by: Richard Blaine at November 17, 2004 at 05:39 AM

"a Nobel Peace Prize winner has authoritatively suggested that the CIA is in fact responsible for dandruff"

So many possibilities...

This year's winner, Wangari Maathai, has claimed that AIDS was invented in the west in order to "control" black people, but I'm not aware that she has expressed any theories about dandruff.

So, who is it?

Posted by: Bruce Rheinstein at November 17, 2004 at 05:50 AM

JamesUK is correct -

"How many GIs will now get killed cleaning out these Iraqi shitholes because they hestitated due to due process and the possible publicity of this case? Just one is far too many."

I wonder how many of our military have already been killed or wounded since the begining of the Iraq war because we had to go out of our way to be sensitive, careful and PC?

Posted by: Donna at November 17, 2004 at 06:29 AM

What about the idiots here http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Marine-shoots-his-prisoner-dead/2004/11/16/1100574469389.html

Posted by: Dr Pooner at November 17, 2004 at 06:49 AM

I personally think it is time for the military to abandon the media embed program and let the soldiers get the job done. If the media wants to risk their own lives covering the battles then let them do it the old fashioned way...on their own. My guess is these pussies will take the next flight home.

The only people it'll pissed off are the ones trying to find dirt against the war. It isn't like we have an election coming up anytime soon and these media goons don't like Bush or Howard anyway so give them something to get pissed off about and I expect nothing really changes in tomorrows headlines.

Posted by: Tej at November 17, 2004 at 07:59 AM

"I wonder how many of our military have already been killed or wounded since the begining of the Iraq war because we had to go out of our way to be sensitive, careful and PC?"

Folks, I understand your frustration. But the US military has something called the "Unified Code Of Military Justice", the equivalent of state or federal laws that apply to soldiers anywhere in the world.

I won't bother quoting the relevent articles in the UCMJ. But the mistreatment of prisoners of war is expressly forbidden, and is punishable after trial by courtmartial!

A well trained soldier, today, is bluntly told and trained not to shoot prisoners. It's a war crime, the legal and moral equivalent of someone killing a rapist-murderer who just got let on a technicality.

The Marine has *allegedly* shot a prisoner. There will be an investigation, just like any death that does not occur under the care of a physician. It's the LAW.

Please remember this, and don't encourage our troops to become wanton killers. God knows the lefties say that they are often enough, when we all know that it ain't so.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 17, 2004 at 08:39 AM

Why is he a prisoner, had he surrendered? No, he was a POS laying there ready to kill some Marines. He had three weeks to get out of the city before the attacks. If he stayed, he's presumed to be an enemy fighter. It is not a UCMJ offense nor is it a violation of the Hague Convention unless he is a Prisoner of War. Let the bleeding hearts on this site take the Marine's place in that Mosque, or better yet have their sons or daughters face the same decision that Marine had to make in a split second.

Semper Fi to this one and to all Marines! Kill them first, ask questions afterwards!

Posted by: EddieP at November 17, 2004 at 09:28 AM

EddieP, rest assured, I'm not a bleeding heart. The terrorist is dead, and I'm glad of it. I hope this crap doesn't slow down the next Marine or soldier in a similar situation.

I'm glad to hear that you support this Marine. He's going to need it. But to break it to you as gently as possible, your opinion on this topic doesn't matter one fucking bit. This includes people here and on other blogs with similar opinions.

Remember Abu Gharib? The prison abuse scandal? That Marine is responsible to his chain of command, up to and including the President of the United States. Just like those soldiers were. Or the soldiers convicted of throwing a couple Iraqis off a bridge, with one drowning. Or other crimes that have been committed.

In order to maintain military discipline, one must have military law. That's the UCMJ I mentioned earlier. Otherwise, we don't have a trained and disciplined military, we have a bunch of bandits. UCMJ sets the standards.

This Marine will be given a fair shake, that I firmly believe. There are mitigating circumstances here, as noted above. But there will be an investigation, and there will likely be a trial.

The Marine deserves better. But no one said life was fair.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 17, 2004 at 10:15 AM

Has anyone seen the sequence of photos in this morning's "AGE" regarding the alleged "murder" of a POW in Iraq by a US marine.? I have never seen a more misleading and biased sequence. Have a look at the way they have interposed a picture of a POW as the second picture.? He sure is not pretending to be dead!!!!!!

Posted by: LaVallette at November 17, 2004 at 11:54 AM

That Marine was needed sooo badly when David Hicks was being captured!

Posted by: Steve at the pub at November 17, 2004 at 11:59 AM

"your opinion on this topic doesn't matter one fucking bit."

Damn, I thought this was a blog where people shared their opinions on topics provided by the host....I must have been mistaken.

Eddie: not sure how many bleeding hearts you'll find around here but your opinion sounds credible to me. But I guess my opinion of your opinion probably doesn't matter either.

Posted by: tej at November 17, 2004 at 12:32 PM

Please forgive my ignorance, TRJS, but how is a terrorist defined under the UCMJ? He wasn't wearing a uniform and he wasn't a civilian, or is that irrelevant when someone becomes a "prisoner".

I admit I that I side with the Marine, but am interested about what is what in these circumstances.

Posted by: Claire at November 17, 2004 at 12:49 PM

Bryant would have had poor luck trying that crap in my neighborhood. Most of us have concealed carry permits for a reason... we carry!

Posted by: Frank in Okla at November 17, 2004 at 12:59 PM

I don't believe that there is any definition of terrorist under UCMJ, Claire. A good JAG officer might correct me.

I know that there are enemy combatants, non-combatants (friendly or enemy), enemy prisoners, and friendly combatants. A "terrorist" under these circumstance is most likely defined as an enemy combatant, but I don't know what rules of engagement are in effect around Fallujah. A lot rides on what the interim Iraqi government has to say about the matter. It is their nation, after all.

What a lot of people here are missing is the Marine allegedly shot a wounded prisoner. *Whatever* status that creep had before surrendering or being captured was immaterial once he was taken prisoner.

Military personnel are responsibile for the safety and security for prisoners in their custody. That's "responsible" as in "keep them alive". No, not at the expense of American lives, but with reasonable precautions and no dangerous behavior (e.g., no forcing prisoners to walk through a mine field to clear the waay for friendlies, however tempting that might be).

Does this mean that the Marine would never be justified in shooting the prisoner/terrorist? Hell no! There are several reasons as to why he should, all of which come down "self defense". It depends on the circumstances. And an investigation will determine that.

And not one person on this blog can accurately describe those circumstances, unless the Marines have INTERNET cafes all through Fallujah. Am I wrong, people? I know I ain't there.

For the record, I suspect that circumstances will clear the Marine. I don't know it, but that's my opinion.

Hope that helps, Claire.

As to the rest....Say tej caught a burglar in his home, and shot him in the leg. Then tej called the police, and then stood guard. While tej waited, the burglar moved suddently, and tej killed him.

Now, is tej a hero? A criminal? A citizen defending himself? We all have our opinions. But until the police complete an investigation, all we have are our opinions. Will those opinions change the course of the investigation? Can, say, EddieP, grab the ear of the police chief, and give him sage advice? Maybe, if EddieP is the Police Commissioner.

But me, I'm sitting in a bar three blocks away from the police station, and a couple miles from tej's place. What's my opinion worth? Maybe a beer, if someone is tired of hearing my rant, and buys one to shut me up.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 17, 2004 at 01:17 PM

Thank you, TRJS. It is, of course, difficult for anyone not actually there to know.

It is just very frustrating that the MSM leaps at any opportunity to disparage the troops.

I hope the investigation is conducted swiftly, and fairly.

Posted by: Claire at November 17, 2004 at 01:32 PM

De nada, Claire. Military law is not my specialty, but I've dealt with "non-war" UCMJ matters before.

"It is just very frustrating that the MSM leaps at any opportunity to disparage the troops."

Me as well, and I expect the same is true for most of the bloggers on this thread. Much of the MSM treats terrorists and "insurgents" as non-hostiles, and our troops as criminals. All to increase subscribers. Feh!

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 17, 2004 at 01:43 PM

Let us hope that non-pc justice will prevail (whatever the outcome).

Maybe next time a Marine can suggest that the "embedded" journalist check whether or not one of his beloved "insurgents" is dead....

whoops, don't want to be politically incorrect - his or her beloved etc.

Posted by: Claire at November 17, 2004 at 01:52 PM

TRJS - I'd buy you an unconditional beer if it weren't for 3000 miles of ocean. So I'll raise a glass to your health instead, next time I'm in the pub. Cheers! Signing off...

Posted by: JamesUK at November 17, 2004 at 01:56 PM

From Fox News, regarding the alleged shooting of UN aid worker, and terrorist sympathiser, Margaret Hassan:

"The video shows a hooded militant firing a pistol into the head of a blindfolded woman wearing an orange jumpsuit, said Al-Jazeera spokesman Jihad Ballout."

Jihad Ballout??!!!!

Posted by: Nash Kato at November 17, 2004 at 02:00 PM

Cheers, JamesUK! :-D

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 17, 2004 at 02:38 PM

When LCPL Miller comes home, I sure hope none of those Akron folks call him a soldier where he can hear them.

Posted by: Michael Lonie at November 17, 2004 at 03:02 PM

"As to the rest....Say tej caught a burglar in his home, and shot him in the leg. Then tej called the police, and then stood guard. While tej waited, the burglar moved suddently, and tej killed him."

Fortunately Tej lives in Virginia and knows that if a burglar comes in his house he can kill him and call the coroner to come pick him up.

"It is just very frustrating that the MSM leaps at any opportunity to disparage the troops."

I just looked at an unedited tape of this shooting and I think it is alot about nothing. As far as I am concerned the story is over and is now in the military's hands to sort it out. Any more msm stories serve no purpose except to incite our enemy.

Abu Graeb was a complete embarrassment but not because of the acts committed rather the way the press portayed it. When the news story is bigger than the story itself there is a problem. What was accomplished after it was known by the people who needed to correct the situation?

Its time to turn to "oil for food" and issues they can enlighten us on.

Posted by: Tej at November 17, 2004 at 03:12 PM

"Fortunately Tej lives in Virginia and knows that if a burglar comes in his house he can kill him and call the coroner to come pick him up."

Fortunately, I'm not a burglar! ;-P

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 17, 2004 at 03:55 PM

Hey instead of giving money for snipers. if you are so pro-war why not enlist????? Put your anger to good use!

Posted by: JSJ at November 17, 2004 at 04:20 PM

That reporter should've backed up the tape, and taped over it with something else, conveniently "losing" the evidence. And kept his mouth shut.

War is hell. The soldiers should be the ones making sure their fellow soldiers are behaving properly. The vast majority are good people doing a very tough job. There may be a few bad apples, but this kid isn't one of them. IMO, of course.

Posted by: david at November 17, 2004 at 04:26 PM

OOps! I was talking about the kid caught shooting the wounded guy. Sorry.

Posted by: david at November 17, 2004 at 04:27 PM

Aagh! Not "caught". Seen.

I'll try to be more careful from now on.

Posted by: david at November 17, 2004 at 04:28 PM

Hey looks like "big hawk" has a new moniker - jsj

Posted by: Just Another Bloody Lawyer at November 17, 2004 at 06:59 PM

JABL, I think you're right; same sentence fragments, and inability to punctuate correctly.

Kids: the real world will grade you on spelling and grammar.

Posted by: John Nowak at November 17, 2004 at 08:37 PM

Getting back to Australian gun-laws, the crime rate did not shoot up after the buy-back.
That canard was invented by the American gun-lobby.
This has been a much safer country since Port Arthur.

Posted by: david at November 18, 2004 at 05:55 AM

This is a USA Today photo-essay that contains the said picture. But please check out Picture 2. Why is there no uproar about that one?

Jim

Posted by: jungus at November 18, 2004 at 06:46 AM

Regarding War Crimes:
The Bush Admin./USA as a whole are being investigated for War Crimes, to be tried in The Hague at some future date for invading a country that was not a
threat, an Illegal War, so one Marine is hardly worth getting all worked up about, when the US will be paying for it for many future generations, never mind the
fact that we are already in debt more then all the debt of all the other countries put together.
Any way, how are you so sure this prisoner that was shot was a terrorist, the Marines were sending men back to the city when they were trying to leave before
this final bombardment.
Biblical, all right.... damn western religious fanatics...

Posted by: BenT at November 18, 2004 at 09:02 AM

Regarding the "War Crime" in Fallujah, the Belmont Club (http://belmontclub.blogspot.com#110072444699933942) has an item today about a Marine killed in the exact same kind of circumstances aparent in the Mosque incident.

Posted by: Roderick Reilly at November 18, 2004 at 09:11 AM

plenty here to keep you busy, updated daily:
http://www.antiwar.com/

Posted by: BenT at November 18, 2004 at 09:29 AM

Ben, you are aware that you are rambling and incoherent, yes? Sober up before you post.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 18, 2004 at 10:08 AM

Nash Kato,

The reference to Margaret Hassan as a terrorist sympathiser is pretty bloody low. In certain circles you'd be referred to as an ankle - i.e. three feet lower than a c***.

The defense of mass-killer Martin Bryant and classification of Mrs Hassan in this way, all within this comments thread and without any comeback from the usual suspects that comment here, would lead me to think this ain't a particularly well self-policed site.

Posted by: Swade at November 18, 2004 at 10:33 AM

Hey Swade, I thought you HAD SAID GOOD BYE. It looks like "ain't... particularly well self-policed" refers to yourself more than anyone else here. Allow me to start policing, then. Welcome to the Legions of the Banned. Say hi to BenT, he's going with you.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at November 18, 2004 at 10:59 AM